Hey Supercane & TxWxWx...

[Steve]

>>Based on all of this information, only two to three named storms, one hurricane, and no major hurricanes are forecasted in the Gulf of Mexico this season.

We've hit our two. Are you guys looking to update your forecast, or are you sticking with it?

Thanks.

Steve

[Derek Ortt]

well... Arlene was technically a Caribbean storm that moved into the GOM

[Anonymous]

>>Based on all of this information, only two to three named storms, one hurricane, and no major hurricanes are forecasted in the Gulf of Mexico this season.

We've hit our two. Are you guys looking to update your forecast, or are you sticking with it?

Thanks.

Don't remind us.

We don't have any plans to update our forecast...what was said in the discussion is final. But given the current tally, and it's only June 29...it'd be miraculous to see only 1 more in the GOM this year. It may happen, but my hopes aren't high. That said, while we're willing to accept the NS expectation may be off...we still stand firm to our reasoning for only 1 hurricane and no major in the GOM.

well... Arlene was technically a Caribbean storm that moved into the GOM

Yes, though our GOM forecast included storms moving into the region.

[Swimdude]

Hehehe ouch... I thought this was supposed to be an active GOM season?

[Steve]

It depends on the forecaster/forecast team swim. There were some compelling arguments about why this would be an East Coast year, a Gulf year, a fish spinner year and any combination of the above (my opinion, it's any combination of the above). It all depends on the source. I happen to review several seasonal forecasts each year. Independentwx is one of the ones I put a lot of stock in because they use research and discuss trends that almost no one else does (at least not publically), and some of these aspects may prove to be useful in the future. I also respect Rob and Jason probably as much as I respect any amateurs on the web. They know from the past if I disagree with them, I will ask them about an issue, and they are always up front and never shy away from any challenges.

As I've said many times, I think we're on the verge of being able to quantify and qualify tropical seasons in a broad sense. Most of us are pretty good with predicting numbers, so it's only a matter of time before some researchers will show considerable skill in forecasting generalized areas (and eventually maybe localized areas). However, I am also beginning to think that we just don't have enough historical data to assess certain variables yet. North America is at least several million years old in its current state (generally), yet we only have between 50 and 70 years of useable research data (some will disagree with this, but even if we have 120 years, that's probably less than .0001% or less of history). So there will be years where things look a certain way but end up having elements not conforming to other seasons where situations were similar (or even equal). What does this all mean? I don't know. But the atlantic coast indicators that have previously shown a 1 year in the delay of busy Gulf seasons don't seem to be coming into play - at least not yet. There's no guarantee another system is going to get into the Gulf of Mexico, but I'd almost be willing to bet that if we do get it up to around 15 storms, we'll see maybe 3 or 4 more. And this doesn't jibe with what my boys put out. So I guess I just had to ask the question.

Steve

[Anonymous]

Thanks for the nice comments Steve. If we bust badly on any of our aspects...we'll learn from the mistakes, toss out the bad stuff, and of course keep finding new patterns to use for future seasons. And yes, seasonal forecasting as a whole is slowly advancing away from just numbers IMO...whether or not some of things we found will work every season is yet to be seen. It'll be interesting to see, either way.

[MGC]

It is a challenge to forecast the number of named systems let alone where in the basin they will form. The inclusion of landfall probability in seasonal forecast is questionable at best. I didn't forecast two June systems and I doubt anyone else did. So, we have all busted to date. I just wish SC and Tropical would post more often on this forum as they frequently offer excellent opinions...MGC

[Steve]

>>It is a challenge to forecast the number of named systems let alone where in the basin they will form. The inclusion of landfall probability in seasonal forecast is questionable at best. I didn't forecast two June systems and I doubt anyone else did. So, we have all busted to date. I just wish SC and Tropical would post more often on this forum as they frequently offer excellent opinions...MGC

I don't know who might have, but surely somewhere out there has that claim. I thought maybe the Alley did, but I can't find their month-by-month forecast. I completely agree with MGC. I love reading their stuff too.

>>Thanks for the nice comments Steve. If we bust badly on any of our aspects...we'll learn from the mistakes, toss out the bad stuff, and of course keep finding new patterns to use for future seasons. And yes, seasonal forecasting as a whole is slowly advancing away from just numbers IMO...whether or not some of things we found will work every season is yet to be seen. It'll be interesting to see, either way.

Indeed. It may not be until our kids or their kids are grown up before we make serious headway, or it might be in the next few years, but it's going to happen. I certainly appreciate your efforts. As for the nice comments, you guys earned that respect over the years no question about it.

Steve

[Steve]

That's 3 guys with maybe another on the way...

Steve